Talk:Godless: The Church of Liberalism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey, that sounds good. Must get that.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT) that's who Ann Coulter is...she seems...kind of...I can't think of a nice word for it so I'm just not going to say it...a good entry though about the book.NSmyth 12:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait. Adult men don't actually believe what she says... do they?-AmesGyo! 13:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Many adults are perfectly willing to pretend that they do. She's succeeded in making outright lies, borderline physical threats, and deliberate obtuseness respectable, and I'm afraid there are many people grateful to her for that. --PF Fox 13:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you inviting debate? --Ed Poor 13:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm curious as to who or what takes her seriously.-AmesGyo! 13:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It did not occur to me that what Coulter has said is debatable, but if you want to debate the issue, I'm up for it.

Did she or did she not say that "“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

Did she or did she not say of some of the 9/11 widows: "“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.” Did she or did she not also say of them,"How do we know that their husbands, the husbands of the people who died on 9/11, weren't planning to divorce these harpies,"

Did she or did she not say that her only regret about Tim McVeigh was that he didn't go to the NY Times Building? --PF Fox 18:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I've told you a thousand times, stop exaggerating! ;-) --Ed Poor 18:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If what PF Fox says is correct, it doesn't sound like this author is family-friendly at all. I suggest deletion, with a protection in place to prevent re-creation. --Huey dun gotcha 18:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

-) Didn't she say these things? --PF Fox 18:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
She did say those things, she truly is an awful woman. Should we delete her articles?-AmesGyo! 11:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Jersey widows[edit]

Among the more controversial sections of the book was Ann Coulter’s attack on several women who had lost their husbands in 9/11 and had voiced criticism of President Bush’s approach to terrorism:

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”

This was not "controversial", let alone "more controversial". Rather, this was a section which liberals objected to. An objection does not make a controversy. There is only a controversy when there are two sides, and a debate goes on and on about an issue.

The Jersey Girls flap was merely a PR attack on Coulter and does not deserve mention in the article. --Ed Poor 11:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

What, Ed, would you define as a "controversy" if not a passage in a book that arouses a high level of heated debate? And yes, it does deserve mention in the article. You'd just like it removed because that passage is embarrassing to Ann Coulter and well nigh impossible to defend. --PF Fox 14:53, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

From Ed Poor "Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. "Ad hominem" means "against the man", rather than against what the man is saying (or in Coulter's case, against the woman).

This is your lucky day Ed! I'd be DELIGHTED to answer her criticism of the Jersey girls, and I have no doubt you'll be just as DELIGHTED to defend those remarks of her's! Let's have at it! My criticism is as follows:
Ann Coulter is in absolutely no position, and has absolutely no business announcing in a book that some of the women widowed by 9/11 are "enjoying" their husbands deaths. She has even less business referring to them as "harpies" and saying that they had better hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY and speculating that their husbands may have wanted to divorce them anyway. There is absolutely no context in which such remarks would be appropriate.
Plainly you disagree with this criticism of mine. Let's hear your arguments. Be sure to include any information you might have about how these women truly felt about their husbands being incinerated/buried/crushed in the World Trade Center catastrophe, how their physiques measure up to possibly posing in PLAYBOY (and how much they probably desire to do this)and what the state of their marriages were before their husband's deaths. (If your premise is that the very fact that these women disagree with George Bush on the War on Terror means they are inhuman "harpies" who have no human feelings worth seriously considering, be sure to mention it.)
Looking forward to seeing your defense of that passage. --PF Fox 15:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I fail to see what your personal attack on Coulter has to do with her arguments about liberalism being "like a religion". Perhaps you should bring this matter up at talk:Ann Coulter, where you can protest her tendency to "be mean" to various people. While you're at it, will you also be criticizing Howard Stern for being mean? Or are you applying a double standard? --Ed Poor Talk 01:17, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, Ed, for the record, I HAVE criticized Howard Stern. And no, I'm not the one waving a "double-standard" here." --PF Fox 09:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)


"... liberalism holds every single characteristic of a religion: an atheistic one." vs. "Liberalism has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods ..." An atheistic religion with gods? EBrown 19:15, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I haven't read the book, but it seems from that sentence alone that she's trying to say liberalism have their own targets of religious worship, even if it is not really a "god". Maybe she's referring to environmentalism and the earth? WilliamH 19:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
But if it has a god, or multiple gods, it's by definition not atheistic. EBrown 19:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
It could still be a "god" in a metaphorical sense like the one I presented above. Maybe someone who has read her book can clarify this? WilliamH 19:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that would be most helpful-- As would a note in the article to the same extent. EBrown 19:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
What Coulter has said in her book, which I own, is that liberals have created false gods out of their predecessors. People like the old Marxist communists and musicians like John Lennon. They treat these men like martyrs and saints, beyond reproach and utterly infallible. They idolize and glorify them, like the posters of Che Guevera. These are the altars to which they pray. Das Kapitalis is their bible. Abortion is their sacrament. Mother Nature is their most Supreme Being. They live and die for Her. It is indeed atheistic because their "gods" are not spiritual gods, but men and things that have come before them. TheHeroExcelsior 10:03, 9 September 2009 (EDT)